USPTO Patents Application 10071908

CERTIFICATE OF MAIL

Applicant(s): Kinnard et al.

CLASS MAIL (37 CFR 1.8)

Docket No.
00-SM5-142

Application No.
10/071,908

Februa

Examiner
Zervigon, Rudy

Customer No.
23413

Group Art Unit
1763

Invention: REACTOR ASSEMBLY AND PROCESSING METHOD

I hereby certify that this Amended Appeal Briel (20 pgs)

(Identify type of correspondence)

is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope

addressed to "Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450" [37 CFR 1.8(a)] on
January 5, 2005

(Date)

Angela Singleton

Note: Each paper must have its own certificate of mailing.

P07A/REVO4

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Appellants: Kinnard et al.

Serial No.: 10/071,908

Filed: February 8, 2002

For: REACTOR ASSEMBLY AND

PROCESSING METHOD

Group Art Unit: 1763

Examiner: Zervigon, Rudy

Assistant Commissioner for Patents

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

APPEAL BRIEF

1

*

00-SM5-142

I. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

The real party in interest in this Appeal is Axcelis Technologies, Inc.

II. RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

There are no related appeals or interferences known to Appellants, Appellants' legal
representatives, or assignee that will directly affect, be directly affected by, or have a bearing
on the Board's decision in the pending appeal.

III. STATUS OF THE CLAIMS

Claims 1-21 and 32-36 are pending in the application and stand finally rejected.
Claims 1-21 and 32-36, as they currently stand, are set forth in Section IX below. Appellants
hereby appeal the final rejection of Claims 1-21 and 32-36.

IV. STATUS OF THE AMENDMENTS

No amendments have been filed subsequent to the final rejection dated June 20, 2005.
All prior amendments have been entered.

V. SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claimed invention is generally directed to cross flow reactor assemblies. In
independent Claim 1, and as is generally shown in Figures 1 and 2, the reactor assembly (10)
comprises a base unit (14); a chuck assembly (20); a process chamber (40); an inlet manifold
assembly (60); and an exhaust manifold assembly (80). The base unit (14) is described in
greater detail at paragraph [0036] and is shown in Figure 4; and the chuck assembly (20) is
described in greater detail at paragraphs [003 7] -[0040] and a detailed exploded view of the
chuck assembly can be found in Figure 5. The process chamber (40) is described in detail at
paragraphs [0041] - [0043] and is clearly shown in Figures 1, 2, and 9. The inlet manifold
assembly (60) is described in detail at paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and is shown in Figures 10-
12. The exhaust manifold assembly (80) is described in detail at paragraphs [0047]-[0050]
and is shown in Figures 13-18.

2

00-SM5-142

The chuck assembly (20) is disposed in a cavity (18) of the base unit and comprises a
support (22) having a surface capable of receiving a substrate.

The process chamber (40) as presented in Claim 1 comprises a top wall (42), a
bottom wall, and sidewalls (44) extending therefrom substantially perpendicular to the
support surface (22) of the chuck assembly (20), and a cylindrical opening extending through
the bottom wall to the top wall defining a substantially cylindrically shaped interior region
(see Figure 9) having a central axis extending substantially perpendicular to the support
surface of said chuck assembly (20). The process chamber is coupled to the base unit.

The claimed inlet manifold assembly (60) is in fluid communication with a first
sidewall opening (48) of the process chamber (40) in a selected one of the sidewalls (44) and
comprises a flow-shaping portion (64) adapted to laterally elongate a gas and/or a reactant
flow into the process chamber (40). The fluid communication between the inlet manifold
assembly (60) and the first sidewall opening (48) of the process chamber is free from a baffle
plate.

The exhaust manifold assembly (80) is in fluid communication with a second sidewall
opening (50) of the process chamber (40) in the sidewall (44) diametrically opposed from the
selected one of the sidewalls, wherein the first and second sidewall openings (48, 50) define
an entire flow path of the gas and/or the reactant flow into and out of the process chamber
(40).

In independent Claim 32, the top wall 42 of the process chamber is transparent and
the reactor assembly further comprises a light source assembly in operable communication
with the transparent top wall for projecting radiation into the process chamber.

The claimed cross flow reactor assemblies permit a reaction to proceed at a faster rate
than conventional axial flow reactors while providing control of the substrate temperature.
Since chamber volume is relatively small in the claimed cross flow configuration, residence
time is minimized. Moreover, the lack of a baffle plate at the gas inlet advantageously
reduces the effect of recombination of active species by reducing the surface area in contact

3

00-SM5-142

with the gas and reducing pressure variations upstream of the wafer. Other advantages
include, but are not limited to, elimination of parasitic wafer heating or so-called "first
wafer" effects normally found in baffle plate equipped axial flow reactors; higher strip rates
than conventional axial flow reactors; lower manufacturing costs due to a simpler design;
elimination of quartz or aluminum alloys and coatings used for inlet gas distribution; and
smaller footprint due to the decreased size and vertical height. The reactor assembly is
versatile and can be readily adapted for a variety of applications.

VI. GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL

1. Whether Claims 1-4, 10-16, 21, and 32-36 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,143,079 to Halpin et al.
(hereinafter "Halpin") in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,077,875 to Hoke et al. (hereinafter
"Hoke").

2. Whether Claim 5 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly
unpatentable over Halpin et al. and Hoke et al. in view of the STIC translation of JP 02-
152251 to Takagi et al. (hereinafter "Takagi").

3. Whether Claims 7, 10 and 17-19 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), as allegedly unpatentable over Halpin and Hoke in view of U.S. Patent No.5, 190,592
to Chazee et al. (hereinafter "Chazee").

4. Whether Claims 8 and 9 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
allegedly unpatentable over Halpin et al. and Hoke in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,583,638 to
Costello et al. (hereinafter "Costello").

VII. ARGUMENT

1. Claims 1-4, 10-16, 21, and 32-36 were improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C
103(a) and are patentable over Halpin in view of Hoke.

Halpin is generally directed to a process chamber that includes a system of multiple
gas ports, which are characterized as being critical for providing improved gas flow through

4

t « *

00-SM5-142

the described process chamber. Generally, the process chamber as described includes an
inlet port, a primary outlet port, a first side outlet port and a second side outlet port. The side
outlet ports are opposite each other and approximately 90 degrees from the inlet and primary
outlet ports. It should also be noted that Halpin describes the use of a gas injector (see
Halpin, Col. 11, 11., 16-21) for injecting the gases into the inlet port. The gas injector injects
gases in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the flow of gases from the inlet
port to the outlet ports.

Hoke is generally directed to a horizontal metallorganic chemical vapor deposition
reactor vessel (MOCVD) including an elongated rectangular shaped processing chamber. To
obtain its desired flow pattern, Hoke employs a baffle plate disposed adjacent to the inlet port
to allegedly increase uniformity and decrease turbulence of a vapor stream flowing through
the chamber. A block is also disposed within the chamber, which is positioned between the
baffle plate and a substrate support assembly. The chamber itself includes a rather spacious
interior region to house the baffle plate, block, substrate support, and also provides a space
intermediate the exhaust portion and the support. A RF coil is disposed about the external
periphery of the process chamber and provides inductive heating of the substrate during
operation thereof.

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must meet the burden of
establishing (1) that the prior art relied upon, coupled with knowledge generally available in
the art at the time of the invention, must contain some suggestion or incentive that would
have motivated the skilled artisan to modify a reference or to combine references; (2) that the
proposed modification of the prior art must have had a reasonable expectation of success,
determined from the vantage point of the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made;
and (3) that all elements of the claimed invention are disclosed in the prior art. In re Vaeck,
947 F. 2d 488, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Under the first element, to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention,
the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the

5

00-SM5-142

proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1 125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

In each one of Applicants' independent claims, the claimed reactor assembly
comprises, inter alia, first and second sidewall openings that define an entire flow path of the
gas and/or the reactant flow into and out of the process chamber. In contrast, Halpin teaches
and suggests a process chamber that includes a multiple port system, i.e., an inlet port, a
primary main port, a first side outlet port, and a second side outlet port. These ports are
necessary so as to provide "improved gas flow". In fact, Halpin in its detailed description
labels a section as "Inlets and Outlets for Improved Gas Flow" (see Halpin at Column 10,
line 33), using the plural form to characterize "outlets". Immediately after the section
heading, Halpin discloses that "[t]he preferred chamber provides improved gas flow
distribution by employing multiple ports (emphasis added), (see Halpin at Col. 10, 11. 34-35).
Specifically, the outlet ports are "symmetrically distributed in the chamber to facilitate
uniform, laminar flow, and reduce recirculations." (see Halpin,. Col. 10, 11. 39-41). If Halpin
were modified to have first and second sidewall openings that define the entire flow path of
the gas and/or the reactant flow into and out of the process chamber as claimed by
Applicants, the intended purpose of Halpin would be destroyed. Halpin is explicit in its
teachings that their process chambers have multiple outlet ports to provide the desired gas
and/or reactant flow through the process chamber. Halpin's intended purpose is to have the
gases spread out across the wafer being processed. The proposed modification with Hoke to
minimize the multiple outlet ports to a single main outlet and a single inlet would render the
Halpin invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and runs counter to that taught by
Halpin as essential. For example, according to Halpin:

[b]y providing side gas outlets 26 and 28, in addition to the main gas
outlet 24, gas distribution within the chamber can be controlled to provide
gas flow toward the sides of the chamber where side outlet ports are
located, as well as generally downstream direction toward the main outlet.

(Halpin, Col. 14, 11. 43-48)

Furthermore, by improving gas flow in this manner, the chamber 10 can
be made more compact than previously designed chambers because the
reactant gases do not require additional space to spread out toward the

6

00-SM5-142

sides of the chamber before reaching then wafer.
(Halpin, Col. 14, 11.51-55)

Thus, modifying the multiple outlet ports (which is a critical necessity to the gas flow
properties provided by Halpin' s multiple outlet port process chamber and is also what Halpin
teaches as a whole) in the manner suggested by Hoke would render the Halpin invention
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.

Moreover, it is well known that if the proposed modification or combination of the
prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified,
then the teaching of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie case
obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F. 2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). Clearly, modifying the
process chamber as taught by Halpin in the manner proposed by a combination with the
Hoke reference would change the principle of operation. Halpin teaches and suggests a
process chamber having multiple outlet ports to provide a desired laminar flow pattern into
and out of the process chamber as well as provide flow toward the sides of the chamber. By
modifying Halpin to have a single outlet port would necessarily change the principle of
operation. No longer would gas flow be provided towards the sides of the chamber where
the side outlet ports are located. Thus, it would be expected based on the teachings of
Halpin provided as a whole that uniformity would suffer if the process chamber were limited
to a single outlet. Moreover, it would no longer be feasible, based on the teachings provided
therein, to provide a process chamber having a compact design because now additional space
would be require to allow the lateral flow of the gases. Hoke, doesn't appreciate this
problem since it is a MOCVD with ample space within the interior region of its elongated
process chamber. For at least these reasons alone, the cited combination of Halpin with
Hoke does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness against Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-16,
21, and 32-36.

With regard to the second element required to establish prima facie obviousness, the
proposed modification of the prior art must have had a reasonable expectation of success,
determined from the vantage point of the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Here, there is no reasonable expectation of success. The primary reference, Halpin, teaches

7

00-SM5-142

and suggests a multiple outlet port process chamber that includes a primary main outlet port,
a first side outlet port, and a second side outlet port. The proposed modifications to Halpin
would result in a markedly different process chamber that would not enjoy the benefits
disclosed by utilizing a process chamber with the side outlet ports. As noted in Halpin, the
side outlet ports are critical to its desired gas flow properties. Halpin suggests the
elimination of the main outlet port in some embodiments, but always requires two or more
side outlet ports at a minimum so as to provide gas flow toward the sides of the chamber (see
Halpin, Col. 12, 11. 38-53). Thus, by modifying Halpin as proposed by the Examiner based
on the teachings provided by Hoke would drastically change the flow properties through the
process chamber and it is unlikely to have any reasonable expectation of success given the
complexities in establishing a laminar flow pattern within a compact design and with
uniformity.

Moreover, in applying Section 103, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has consistently held that one must consider both the invention and the prior art "as a whole",
not from improper hindsight gained from consideration of the claimed invention. See,
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 227 U.S.P.Q. 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and cases cited
therein. According to the Interconnect court:

[n]ot only must the claimed invention as a whole be evaluated, but so also
must the references as a whole, so that their teachings are applied in the
context of their significance to a technician at the time - a technician without
our knowledge of the solution.

Id Also critical to this Section 103 analysis is that understanding of "particular results"
achieved by the invention. Id The present rejection fails to consider Halpin "as a whole" and
is improperly relying on hindsight for the basis of the rejection. It is well known patent law,
that when the Section 103 rejection was based on selective combination of the prior art
references to allegedly render a subsequent invention obvious, "there must be some reason
for the combination other than the hindsight gleaned from the invention itself." Id. Stated in
another way, "[i]t is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or

8

00-SM5-142

'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
rendered obvious." In re Fritch 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

As a whole, Halpin teaches the use of multiple ports to provide a uniform flow in its
process chamber. Halpin' s teaching of multiple ports in process chambers has been ignored.
Likewise, the teachings provided by Hoke as a whole have been ignored. Hoke is generally
directed to a rectangular shaped interior region, wherein a baffle plate is disposed adjacent to
an inlet to increase uniformity and decrease turbulence of a vapor stream flowing through the
chamber. A block is disposed within the chamber, which is positioned between the baffle
plate and a substrate support assembly. The baffle plate is required so that a desired laminar
flow pattern for Hoke's particular reactor vessel configuration can be established.
Disregarding the teaching of the baffle plate to provide its desired laminar flow, as proposed
by the Examiner in his combination of Hoke with Halpin, would likely render Hoke's
MOCVD reactor unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. With regard to the necessity of the
baffle plate Hoke comments that:

[t]he baffle 12 is here used to diffuse an incoming vapor through inlet
14, to increase the laminar flow characteristic of said incoming vapor
stream. The gas diffusing baffle 12 has a plurality of apertures or small
holes 12a disposed therethrough. The holes 12a may be disposed in a
pattern or random arrangement. Here the holes 12a are disposed in an
ordered grid arrangement. During growth, vapor enters the reactor
vessel 10 via the reactor inlet 14 (which is connected to tube portion
40g of vapor apparatus 35 of FIG. 2) at a high flow rate,
approximately 10 liters/minute for example. At such flow rate,
pressure builds up in the inlet area 15, behind the gas diffusing baffle
12, resulting in gas flow through all of the plurality of holes 12a of the
gas diffusing baffle 12 thus providing a substantially laminar gas flow.
As mentioned above, the inlet area 15 is linearly tapered; however, due
to the diffusion of the gas by the baffle 12 once pressure has built up in
the inlet area 15, the effect of the shape of such inlet area 15 on the
uniformity of the resulting gas flow, is believed to be relatively
insignificant. The gas diffusing baffle 12 and the inlet area 15 in
which vapor pressure builds, prevent the gas from streamlining along
the center of the rectangular chamber 11. Thus, to insure laminar flow
by use of the baffle 12, it is believed to be sufficient to provide any
shaped inlet area 15 between the inlet 14 and the baffle 12. Such area
will prevent streamlining of the vapor through the baffle 12. Thus, the

9

00-SM5-142

baffle 12 is disposed adjacent to but spaced from the inlet 14 of the
reactor vessel 10. In applications where the width of the chamber 1 1 is
increased due to an increase in the substrate 63 size, but the size of the
inlet 14 remains the same, the streamlining effect will be more
significant, emphasizing the importance of such a baffle 12 .

(Hoke, carryover paragraph of Cols. 7-8, Emphasis added)

Thus, without the baffle plate, the laminar flow characteristics of the incoming vapor
stream would deleteriously decrease. As such, any combination of references that include
the teachings provided by Hoke would require the use of the baffle plate adjacent to the inlet
portion. Applicants' claimed reactor assembly is free of a baffle plate at the inlet. The
Examiner is believed to be using the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template'
to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious, which is clearly improper.

Purportedly, motivation for combining these two particular references was to
combine Hoke's flow shaping portion with Halpin's manifold assembly to arrive at
Applicants' claimed invention (see Office Action dated June 20, 2005, page 14, 117-11).
Clearly, Hoke's flow shaping portion includes the baffle plate at the inlet portion as well as
the block disposed between the baffle plate and a substrate to be processed. This is what
Hoke teaches as a whole as it relates to the flow-shaping portion. Since Halpin is directed to
a markedly different process chamber of a compact design, it is submitted that the flow
shaping portion would not fit within the confines of Halpin's process chamber as described.
In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Examiner is improperly relying on hindsight
by taking selected portions of Hoke's flow shaping portion and combining this with selected
portions of Halpin's inlet manifold assembly to purportedly arrive at Applicants' claimed
invention.

Finally, with regard to the third element that is required to establish prima facie
obviousness, it is submitted that all features of the claimed invention are not disclosed in the
prior art. In each one of Applicants' independent claims, the claimed reactor assembly
comprises, inter alia, first and second sidewall openings that define the entire flow path of
the gas and/or the reactant flow into and out of the process chamber. Halpin fails to teach or

10

00-SM5-142

suggest this feature and for reasons previously discussed, modification in accordance with
the teachings provided by Hoke, is clearly improper. Moreover, even if Halpin were
modified to provide the claimed flow path, Hoke teaches a flow shaping portion that includes
the use of a baffle plate. Applicants claimed reactor assemblies are free of a baffle plate.
Therefore, because all of the elements of independent claims 1 and 32 are not taught in
Halpin, or Hoke, there is no prima facie obviousness.

In view of the foregoing, it is therefore respectfully submitted that the rejection to
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-16, 21, and 32-36 is improper and is requested to be withdrawn.

2. Claim 5 was improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) and is patentable
over Halpin and Hoke in view of the STIC translation of JP 02-152251 to Takagi.

Claim 5 is dependent on the reactor assembly of Claim 1, wherein a bottom wall of
the base unit is adapted to be stackedly attached to a second reactor assembly.

Halpin and Hoke are discussed above.

Takagi is generally directed to a vertical semiconductor manufacturing system that
includes multiple vertically stacked process chambers. Pairs of process chambers are piled
along the vertical direction to minimize the clean room footprint. Takagi fails to compensate
for any of the deficiencies resulting from the combination of Halpin and Hoke as noted
above.

Moreover, it is noted that Hoke teaches wrapping an RF coil about its process
chamber such that the stacking of multiple process chambers would be prevented. Still
further, the drive mechanism in Hoke for the rotating support is positioned underneath the
process chamber. The drive mechanism requires a drive shaft (see Hoke, Figure 4, Ref. No.
22) to effect rotation .of the support platen. Thus, the drive mechanism as suggested by Hoke
would also prevent stacking multiple process chambers. Again, it is believed that the
Examiner is improperly relying on hindsight by picking and choosing various elements as he
deems fit. In view of these differences, a combination of the cited references would fail to

11

00-SM5-142

establish a prima facie case of obviousness and would likely not provide any reasonable
expectation of success.

Favorable reconsideration of Claim 5 is requested.

3. Claims 7, 10 and 17-19 were improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a)
and are patentable over Halpin and Hoke in view of Chazee.

Halpin and Hoke are discussed above.

Chazee is generally directed to an aerosol injection system. The aerosol injection
system produces composite layers by the pyrolysis of solutes on heated substrates traveling
in the muffle of a furnace. The furnace is described as having a parallelpipedic vertical case,
which is used for channeling aerosol from its arrival at the top down to its base. The
Examiner relies on Chazee to purportedly teach Applicants' claimed exhaust assembly as
defined in dependent claims 7, 10, and 17-19.

Applicants first traverse the rejection on the grounds that Chazee is non-analogous
art. For the purposes of evaluating obviousness of claimed subject matter, the particular
references relied upon must constitute "analogous art". In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23
U.S.P.Q.2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The art must be from the same field of
endeavor, or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. Id. As noted above, Chazee discloses an aerosol injection system that includes
flowing solutes within a furnace in a vertical direction. This is not from the same field of
endeavor nor is it closely related to particular problem to which Applicants are involved.

Secondly, there is no motivation to combine this reference with Halpin and Hoke.
Again, it is apparent that the Examiner is failing to consider the teachings provided in each
reference as a whole and is improperly relying on hindsight using Applicant's claimed
invention as a template. Chazee is directly to the vertical flow of solutes through its aerosol
injection system. This is markedly different from Applicants claimed cross flow reactor
assemblies that provide improved cross flow uniformity, among others.

12

00-SM5-142

4. Claims 8 and 9 were improperly rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) and are
patentable over Halpin and Hoke in view of Costello.

Halpin and Hoke are discussed above.

Costello is generally directed to a temperature controlled wafer chuck system.
Costello fails to compensate for any of the deficiencies of Halpin and Hoke discussed above.

In summary, Claims 1-21 and 32-36 are non-obvious over the art of record. For the
reasons cited above, Appellants respectfully submit that all of the claims are allowable and
the application is in condition for allowance. Appellants respectfully request reversal of the
outstanding rejections and allowance of this application.

13

00-SM5-142

VIIL CLAIMS APPENDIX

1. (Rejected) A reactor assembly comprising:

a base unit;

a chuck assembly disposed in a cavity of the base unit, wherein the chuck assembly
comprises a support having a surface capable of receiving a substrate;

a process chamber comprising a top wall, a bottom wall, and sidewalls extending
therefrom substantially perpendicular to the support surface of said chuck assembly, and a
cylindrical opening extending through the bottom wall to the top wall defining a substantially
cylindrically shaped interior region having a central axis extending substantially
perpendicular to the support surface of said chuck assembly , wherein the process chamber is
coupled to the base unit;

an inlet manifold assembly in fluid communication with a first sidewall opening of
the process chamber in a selected one of the sidewalls, wherein the inlet manifold assembly
comprises a flow-shaping portion adapted to laterally elongate a gas and/or a reactant flow
into the process chamber, wherein the fluid communication between the inlet manifold
assembly and the first sidewall opening of the process chamber is free from a baffle plate;
and

an exhaust manifold assembly in fluid communication with a second sidewall
opening of the process chamber in the sidewall diametrically opposed from the selected one
of the sidewalls, wherein the first and second sidewall openings define an entire flow path of

14

00-SM5-142

the gas and/or the reactant flow into and out of the process chamber.

2. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the flow-shaping
portion of the inlet manifold assembly is adapted to introduce the gas and/or reactant flow
into the process chamber at about a plane parallel to a surface of the substrate.

3. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the flow- shaping
portion is triangularly shaped.

4. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the top wall of the
process chamber is removable.

5. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein a bottom wall of
the base unit is adapted to be stackedly attached to a second reactor assembly.

6. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the exhaust
manifold assembly is adapted to receive the gas and/or reactant flow from the process
chamber at about a plane parallel to the surface of the substrate.

7. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the exhaust
manifold assembly comprises an exhaust receiving portion and a flow restrictor, wherein the
flow restrictor is affixed to an opening of the exhaust receiving portion and is adapted to
restrict the gas and/or reactant flow through the opening from the process chamber into the
exhaust receiving portion.

8. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the support of the
chuck assembly comprises a means for regulating a temperature of the substrate.

15

00-SM5-142

9. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the support
further comprises a resistance heating element and a cooling passage.

10. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the support of the
chuck assembly is stationary and non-rotating.

11. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the inlet manifold
assembly further comprises a flow restrictor attached to an opening of the flow-shaping
portion.

12. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the top wall is
substantially transparent to a light source.

13. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the top wall is
substantially transparent to a UV light source.

14. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the top wall is
substantially transparent to an infrared light source.

15. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the process
chamber includes a third side wall opening in the side wall adjacent to the first and second
sidewall openings, wherein the third opening is sized for transporting the substrate into an
interior region of the process chamber.

16. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, further comprising a baffle
plate disposed about an opening of the flow-shaping portion.

16

00-SM5-142

17. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 7, wherein the exhaust
receiving portion is triangularly shaped.

18. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 7, wherein the flow restrictor
comprises a plate having at least one passageway.

19. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 7 5 wherein the flow restrictor
comprises a rectangularly shaped plate having a length dimension greater than a height
dimension, wherein the passageway is disposed in an area less than or equal to about one half
of the height dimension.

20. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 7, wherein the flow restrictor
comprises anodized aluminum.

21. (Rejected) The reactor assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the inlet manifold
assembly is adapted to introduce the gas and/or reactants at about a plane parallel to a surface
of the substrate and the exhaust manifold assembly is adapted to exhaust the gas and/or
reactants at about a plane parallel to a surface of the substrate.

22-31. (Canceled)

17

32. (Rejected) A reactor assembly comprising:
a base unit;

a chuck assembly disposed in a cavity of the base unit, wherein the chuck assembly
comprises a support having a surface capable of receiving a substrate;

a process chamber comprising a transparent top wall, a bottom wall, and sidewalls
extending therefrom, and a cylindrical opening extending through the bottom wall to the top wall
to define a substantially cylindrically shaped interior region, wherein the process chamber is
coupled to the base unit;

a light source assembly in operable communication with the transparent top wall for
projecting radiation into the process chamber;

an inlet manifold assembly in fluid communication with a first sidewall opening of the
process chamber in a selected one of the sidewalls, wherein the inlet manifold assembly
comprises a flow-shaping portion adapted to laterally elongate a gas and/or a reactant flow into
the process chamber, wherein the fluid communication between the inlet manifold assembly and
the first sidewall opening of the process chamber is free from a baffle plate; and

an exhaust manifold assembly in fluid communication with a second sidewall opening of
the process chamber in the sidewall diametrically opposed from the selected one of the sidewalls,
wherein the first and second sidewall openings define an entire flow path of the gas and/or the
reactant flow into and out of the process chamber.

18

33. (Rejected) The reactor assembly of Claim 32, wherein the light source assembly
comprises a housing and a light source.

34. (Rejected)The reactor assembly of Claim 32, wherein the top wall comprises a
quartz material.

35. (Rejected) The reactor assembly of Claim 32, wherein the exhaust manifold assembly
is adapted to receive the gas and/or reactant flow from the process chamber at about a plane
parallel to a surface of the substrate.

36. (Rejected) The reactor assembly of Claim 32, wherein the transparent top wall is
removable.

19

IX. EVIDENCE APPENDIX

There is no evidence submitted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.130, 37 C.F.R. §1.131, or 37
C.F.R. §1.132 or any other evidence entered by the Examiner and relied upon by the Appellant in
this appeal, known to the Appellants, Appellants' legal representatives, or assignee.

X. RELATED PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX

There are no other related appeals or interferences known to Appellants, Appellants'
legal representatives, or assignee that will directly affect or be directly affected by or have a
bearing on the Board's decision in the pending appeal.

In the event the Examiner has any queries regarding the submitted arguments, the
undersigned respectfully requests the courtesy of a telephone conference to discuss any matters
in need of attention.

If there are any additional charges with respect to this Appeal Brief, please charge them
to Deposit Account No. 06-1 130.

55 Griffin Road South
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Telephone (404) 607-9991
Facsimile (404) 607-9981
Customer No. 23413

Respectfully submitted,

CANTOR COLBURN LLP

Date: January 5, 2006
CANTOR COLBURN LLP

20